'25 years to get Dome cash back'

THE Government will this week try to convince taxpayers and the Opposition that the deal over the Dome represents value for money, arguing that the venture could bring in £500m over the next 25 years.

Although at least £628m of Lottery money was poured into the attraction and some £40m more has been spent keeping the building empty, Lord Falconer will tell MPs they could eventually recoup much of their investment.

The consortium Meridian Delta will not pay a penny initially for the lease of the Dome and the prime building land around it. But Lord Falconer, housing minister with responsibility for the troubled attraction, will argue that the scheme to share profits from the eventual sell-off of land to builders could bring in £ 1/2 billion for taxpayers. Opposition MPs will press home the point that this does not match the funds sunk into it.

Lord Falconer on Sunday denied reports that the Government was planning to build a £200m Thames crossing to placate developers. But it is known that the Government and the Greater London Authority have been looking at plans to build a crossing to bring more development to the 'Thames gateway' boroughs around Greenwich,

The Dome itself is to be turned into a 20,000-seat auditorium for sports events and concerts. One of MDL's backers is Phil Anschultz, the billionaire American developer known for building successful sports arenas. The rest of the site is to be developed gradually as pockets of land are sold off for commercial and housing developments. The amount of money which eventually comes back to the taxpayer has always been uncertain, once Tony Blair rejected the possibility of knocking down the Dome and selling off the site for a much greater sum.

The Tories' Dome spokesman Tim Yeo was scathing about the Government's handling of the issue, saying: 'We have a deal where this extraordinarily valuable site is being given away. There is no prospect of any money coming back to the taxpayer for years - maybe 10 or 15 years.'

He said the Government should have published a full planning brief years ago, setting out what it thought should be done with the site, which would have allowed proper, open bids to be made. He suggested it was unclear whether the issue of the £200m river crossing would be handled separately or as part of the venture.